The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will write to the Attorney-General Goolam E Vahanvati on the controversial “whereabouts” clause of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code adopted by the International Cricket Council (ICC).
The BCCI, apparently, is keen to ensure that it has clarity on the issue, even as a high-powered ICC committee attempts to settle the matter.
The first question the board is asking is whether the obligation to disclose whereabouts would infringe on fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, if they were obligations imposed by the Indian State.
On August 2, Shashank Manohar, the BCCI president, had said that “the clause with regards to whereabouts is unreasonable.”
He had added that disclosing whereabouts to a third party was not feasible for cricketers like Sachin Tendulkar who has Z-category security.
The board is also trying to find out whether any governmental agency can force them to include the “whereabouts” clause in the contracts the players sign with the board.
To that end it has asked if that would constitute an “unreasonable” or “bad” contract if such a clause was “part of a contract between two contracting parties in India,” a source revealed. At the moment, the board's contract with players does not include any specifics on out-of-competition testing or similar protocols.
Shane Warne was banned for a year because his contract with Cricket Australia clearly spelt out the penalties for failing a drugs test.
Warne tested positive for a prohibited diuretic in 2003 but claimed he had merely taken some slimming pills that his mother recommended.
In countries like Australia and England, the cricket boards are required by law to be WADA compliant as this a precondition to receive government funding.
In India, however, the BCCI receives no funding, nor subsidies, from the government and is not affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association.